Up to 49% of patients attending radiation therapy appointments may experience anxiety and distress. Anxiety is heightened during the first few visits to radiation oncology. Radiation therapists (RT) are the only health professionals in direct daily contact with patients during treatment, placing them in a unique position to explore patients’ psychosocial needs. This review aims to synthesise literature regarding the effect of RT‐led psychosocial support on patient anxiety. In May 2015, we searched the following electronic databases: Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane library. Radiation therapy‐specific journals were hand‐searched, and reference lists of identified studies searched. This review complies with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search identified 263 articles, of which 251 were excluded based on non‐English language, duplicate article or relevance. A total of 12 articles involving 1363 patients were included and categorised into three broad themes: ‘Patient Perspectives’ 3 articles, ‘Patient Information and Education’ 5 articles and ‘Screening and Needs Assessment’ 4 articles. Two publications referred to the same sample and data. Quality ratings were mixed, with one study rated ‘high’ quality, seven ‘moderate’ and four ‘low’. Methodological weaknesses were identified in relation to workflow, sample size and responder bias. RTs have a role in psychosocial support through increased communication and information sharing, which can benefit both patients and staff. RT‐led practices such as relationship building, patient education sessions and screening and needs assessments are feasible and can reduce anxiety.

IntroductionThis quality improvement study tested three methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition to investigate if aligning lateral tattoos to minimise pitch, roll and yaw decreased set-up error, and if defining the isocentre using the lateral tattoos for cranio-caudal (CC) position improved isocentre reproducibility. The study population was patients receiving curative external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer. The results are applicable to all supine pelvic EBRT patients.MethodsThe three sequential cohorts recruited 11, 11 and 10 patients respectively. A data set of 20 orthogonal pairs of electronic portal images (EPI) was acquired for each patient. EPIs were matched offline to digitally reconstructed radiographs. In cohort 1, lateral tattoos were adjusted to minimise roll. The anterior tattoo was used to define the isocentre. In cohort 2, lateral tattoos were aligned to minimise roll and yaw. Isocentre was defined as per cohort 1. In cohort 3, lateral tattoos were aligned as per cohort 2 and the anterior tattoo was adjusted to minimise pitch. Isocentre was defined by the lateral tattoos for CC position and the anterior tattoo for the left–right position.ResultsCohort 3 results were superior as CC systematic and random set-up errors reduced from −1.3 mm to −0.5 mm, and 3.1 mm to 1.4 mm respectively, from cohort 1 to cohort 3. Isocentre reproducibility also improved from 86.7% to 92.1% of treatment isocentres within 5 mm of the planned isocentre.ConclusionThe methods of tattoo alignment and isocentre definition in cohort 3 reduced set-up errors and improved isocentre reproducibility.

No abstract

IntroductionUp to one third of radiation therapy patients are reported to have unmet psychosocial needs. Radiation therapists (RTs) have daily contact with patients and can provide daily psychosocial support to reduce patient anxiety, fear and loneliness. However, RTs vary in their values, skills, training, knowledge and involvement in providing psychosocial support.The aims of this study were to: (1) develop an online survey instrument to explore RT values, skills, training and knowledge regarding patient anxiety and psychosocial support, and (2) pilot the instrument with RT professionals to assess content validity, functionality and length.MethodAn online cross‐sectional survey, titled ‘Radiation therapists and psychosocial support’ was developed. Items included patient vignettes, embedded items from RT research, and the Professional Quality of Life Scale (ProQOL5). Four radiation oncology departments volunteered to pilot the survey; each nominated four RT staff to participate. Survey data were analysed descriptively and qualitative feedback grouped and coded to determine whether the survey needed to be refined.ResultsThirteen of sixteen RTs completed the pilot survey and feedback form. Median time to completion was 35 mins, with 54% of respondents stating this was too long. Respondents reported content, questions and response options were relevant and appropriate. Feedback was used to: refine the survey instrument, minimise responder burden and drop out and improve functionality and quality of data collection.ConclusionThis pilot of the ‘Radiation therapists and psychosocial support’ survey instrument demonstrated content validity and usability. The main survey will be circulated to a representative sample of RTs for completion.